Recording Industry Using Net Neutrality Debate To Try To Link Child Porn With Copyright Infringement Again
from the it's-not-the-same dept
We’ve already seen how music industry execs and lobbyists cynically use “child porn” to their advantage (even, sickeningly, declaring “child porn is great”) by lumping it in with copyright infringement in trying to force filters or other third party policing of the internet on politicians and companies. What’s amazing is that they don’t seem to have any shame at all in doing so. The latest example can be found in the “open letter” put together by a bunch of music industry trade groups (RIAA, A2IM, AFM, AFTRA, ASCAP, BMI, NMPA, SESAC, SoundExchange, the Recording Academy, the California Songwriters Association, the Music Managers Forum, and the Nashville Songwriters Association International) to Verizon and Google asking them to make sure their proposed “framework” for net neutrality still doesn’t cover forcing ISPs to be copyright cops. It’s no surprise why they sent this letter, but the inclusion of “child porn” with copyright infringement is really ridiculous:
The music community we represent believes it is vital that any Internet policy initiative permit and encourage ISPs and other intermediaries to take measures to deter unlawful activity such as copyright infringement and child pornography.
The industry seems to work overtime to try to link these two concepts together, despite the vast differences between them. It’s really an incredibly cynical, exploitative and disgusting move by the recording industry, and people should really start calling them on it.
Filed Under: child porn, copyright, net neutrality, recording industry
Companies: a2im, afm, aftra, ascap, bmi, nmpa, riaa, sesac, soundexchange
Comments on “Recording Industry Using Net Neutrality Debate To Try To Link Child Porn With Copyright Infringement Again”
Well, there certainly is a significant connection between the two: it is largely the copyright industry’s crusade against infringing file sharers that has led to technological innovations that make it easier for child porn aficionados to protect their identities while trading child porn on the internet.
Re: Re:
Yeah, and damn those steam engines making child trafficking faster.
Re: Re:
The technology for anonymous P2P has existed for a decade. And if people want to trade child porn, that’s where they’ll go regardless of what the RIAA does.
In my opinion, any network so anonymous it cannot be traced even for child porn should be illegal. The costs to society for creating untraceable online hacker/spammer/pedophile/terrorism havens far outweighs any benefit these services might provide.
And taking down networks like Tor/Freenet/I2P is just as easy as tracing a node and then imposing sanctions (or filtration if overseas) on that IP.
But that would require ISP cooperation and God forbid they lift a finger to do anything except collect subscriptions.
Yes, actually they are linked. Neither of them will be stopped if you simply try to censor traffic. The only way to stop them is at the source (which in the case of child porn is significantly easier, largely because you have at least one witness).
Ending the evil perpetrated against the RIAA
Isn’t an “exploited” RIAA basically the same thing as an exploited innocent child?
Seriously, I would like to end both of these, and I propose the easier problem be taken first so we can focus our resources quickly afterward to tackle the greater challenge. First, let us downsize copyright law significantly so that it will not be nearly as possible in the future to exploit the RIAA’s monopoly subsidy grants. Afterward, children everywhere will celebrate.
I wonder how much child pornography material is traded “illegally”, and by that I mean, without the proper copyright licences being bought and adhered to?
Re: Re:
This would be the best copyright lawsuit EVER.
Also, before too long, they’ll stop charging pedophiles with KP possession, and start charging them with copyright infringement… because the jail terms will be longer.
Think of "the children".
Anytime some scumbag wants to do something dirty, they wave a flag or invoke “the children”.
And she's not the worst of it
If you’ve seen Hannah Montana lately you realize how closely commingled the two concepts actually are
That got what they paid for...
They paid for these ridiculous laws, and now they’re complaining how hard it is to enforce them. Oh boo hoo!
The sad thing is that yes, these groups are more than willing to exploit already exploited children for their own ends.
What’s just as sad here are the attempts a being funny, fob it off or basically agree with them (yeah I’m speaking to you the first AC on the list). And TV shows.
It is long past time they were called on it. Long past.
Disgusting!
Equating copyright infringement to child pornography is disgusting! The only was child pornography could be as bad would be if someone were pirating it!
/s
Prob with record industry here
is the proof that FBI agents are actually pulling guys off missing children cases to look after obama biden Hollywood IP.
SO the try at think of children is utter fail and in 10years of bittorrent i’ve never seen anyone even think of or try to upload sick kiddy porn.
IN fact i hardly bother with porn , i am human and an adult.
FACT is i sense an ACTA leak shortly , odd how these kiddy porn messages start coming right when a doc gets leaked….
So also would you be thinking of children to have htem all staying in doors away form sickos at the park that could kidnap them?
Would it also be safer keeping them away from cocaine and meth dealers to have them online more?
WELL, i am sure mike there is some study proving i’m right some wheres…..
AND i’ll add if they even so much as mention canada , i am now milling around a slander and defamation suit , seeing how we pay a levy…
SO by htis article people in Canada paying a levy aka license are pedophiles?
SLANDER and DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER MAN HARDCORE.
Re: Prob with record industry here
Little failing or not so funtional bot … or ESL type … sometimes you make sense
“FBI agents are actually pulling guys off missing children cases to look after … Hollywood IP.”
You know it might be fun to translate all your stuff to a language we all speak.
Re: Prob with record industry here
…
Are you on the dope?
A music lover's prayer
Dear God, please destroy the “music industry”. Not the musicians, just the “industry” part. We haven’t needed them for at least a decade now, and they never were much good anyway.
While you’re at it, if you could please destroy the “movie industry” too.
I know that the destruction of the music “industry” and the movie “industry” doesn’t mean there won’t be music or movies, just that the people who leech off the artists will have to find other employment, probably as pimps or drug dealers. Maybe it’s best just to smite the lot of them.
Amen.
Re: A music lover's prayer
Seconded
Re: A music lover's prayer
Well, if musicians are all working together to make money, wouldn’t that just be the new “music industry”? You can’t have a propagation of recorded music without an industry.
You people love to attack the middlemen, but you’re ignoring the fact that FB, MySpace, TPB, Bittorrent, Google, Pandora, Spotify, etc are the new MIDDLEMEN! How much ad revenue do these sites make off the content of others? That’s the entire scope of their business model! You can’t be much more in the “middle” than that.
And besides, this scare tactic of “They’re linking child porn with copyright infringement” is patently transparent. They’re only correlated together in as far as they are both illegal activities that propagate through the web. And for a rather long missive, “child pornography” appears only one time. But I doubt anyone bothered to read the actual letter.
But wait, let’s be a little antiseptic and think about this. Copyright issues might come into play: If we just consider the “actors” in child porn to be “content creators” then don’t the “performers” technically own the rights to their performance? I don’t believe there are scripts, so the performance would solely be the property of the participants (especially since I doubt that these children sign contracts that release the reproducible rights of their performance) Is there a royalty scheme in place for these “actors” or any system of recompensation? Or should they just be happy with the free “promotion” they received from starring in a child porn flick?
Apparently the RIAA doesn’t want anyone infringing their child pornography rights either.
Right of Way Link?
No net neutrality = no right of way.
Can’t have one without the other..
The RIAA’s current business model relies on vicious criminals raping children on videotape. Without such heinous crimes, the RIAA has no argument to convince us that they deserve any special consideration.
It’s disgusting that the RIAA would exploit underage victims just to try to convince people that their archaic business model should receive special protection under the law.
It is truely amazing to me how desensitize, and cynical I have become. The words child prostitution, kiddie porn, and its for the children have become synonymous with “I have an agenda”. Politicians, lobbying groups, and anyone seeking attention use this very tragic subject to push their agendas.
Recently I saw an open letter to craigslist on forced child prostitution. My first thought was “what is their agenda?” My second thought was “Its probably the newspapers trying to get their classified ad revenue back”.
Organizations that represent the abused children of our world should take these people to task for using this as a rallying cry. It dishonors the abused children.
Re: Re:
i agree ive been desensitize way to many things i shouldnt be
The thing is that the Obama administration has FIVE former RIAA lawyers on the Dept of Justice. Guess who backs Democrats? Hollywood and the movie/music rich people too. :/
Re: Re:
http://ninapaley.com/mimiandeunice/archives/political-leanings/529
The power of gravity.
It doesn’t really matter democrat or republican is all the same crap it just changes the name.
There’s no equation of rights infringement and child exploitation here, merely the mention of both as unlawful online activity that inappropriately exploits the (fading) perception of privacy. All unlawful activity including phishing, cc# interception, stalking, anything illegal and on the network, will be defined as such and combatted as such. The free ride that all forms of unlawful internet activity have enjoyed because tech outpaced law is drawing to a close as it must, as we always knew it would. Those who advocate the internet must remain an unregulated free-for-all have always been on the wrong side of history. We’re presently sorting online rights—rights that swing both ways—and the grouping of internet based illegality will continue. Get used to it. And knock off the sophistry.
Re: Re:
Hey look everybody, it’s a shill.
Re: Re:
There’s no equation of rights infringement and child exploitation here, merely the mention of both as unlawful online activity
but the assertion that these things are not only technically unlawful but also bad relies on mutually contradictory logic.
If the free copying of music and movies hurts the music/movie production industry and results in less music and movies being produced (arguably a bad thing) then why doesn’t the free copying of child porn hurt the corresponding production industry and result in less child porn being produced?
You could of course turn this argument around – but you can’t have it both ways.
Re: you're on the wrng side of technology
While you may be correct about the “wrong side of history” in some sense, you are on the wrong side of technology. You don’t understand how the internet was built to combat the very forms of censorship you find acceptable. The internet will simply route around your artificial obstacles. You may be able to censor the web, but you will never censor the internet.
Re: Re:
Oh, thank you for admitting that the recording industry just shamelessly threw in child porn to get more attention. That makes it much better.
Re: Re:
There’s no equation of rights infringement and child exploitation here, merely the mention of both as unlawful online activity that inappropriately exploits the (fading) perception of privacy.
I’m not quite sure what you mean here. Are you outright admitting that ISP’s policing copyright is a fundamental invasion of privacy? That the music industry won’t be happy until the entire communications industry is required by law to implement global, warrantless wiretapping?
Good to know.
All unlawful activity including phishing, cc# interception, stalking, anything illegal and on the network, will be defined as such and combatted as such.
Yet, their letter mentioned none of these things. I wonder why? Could it be because Nigerian royalty scams don’t cause the citizenry to clench their vaginas in fear quite like child rape does?
The free ride that all forms of unlawful internet activity have enjoyed because tech outpaced law is drawing to a close as it must, as we always knew it would. Those who advocate the internet must remain an unregulated free-for-all have always been on the wrong side of history.
I’ve seen absolutely zero evidence that this is even close to true. If anything, the internet is becoming more open. Filesharing is increasing, communication is increasing, and all attempts to curb online activity (even by repressive governments) are little more than nuicances to everyone but an unlucky few. Even on the tech side, proprietary technology is on the way out, and open source and open standards are more common now then ever before.
So, keep dreaming that dream.
Get used to it. And knock off the sophistry.
Pot, meet kettle.
Re: Re: Re:
Incidentally, the entire letter – which does not mention privacy at all – can be downloaded here (PDF).
Re: Re: Re:
If an ISP is NOTIFIED that you have used their networks to break the law, why should they not be required to impose sanctions on you for that? How does it remotely “invade your privacy” for them to do so?
If you connect to open P2P you CHOOSE to make your connections public. And if your P2P is so anonymous, law enforcement can’t even trace for child porn, it has no place in civil society and should be banned.
None of this has to do with your privacy. It has to do with you wanting to break the law and then escape punishment for doing so.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Says the anonymous user who apparently has no knowledge of the history and importance of anonymity in free (and civil) society.
Copyright control agencies are deceitful.
I am annoyed that the music copyright agencies are always coming up with a new Red Herring. This child pornography issue is another Red Herring. Since the early 70’s the music industry have always come up with a new Red Herring as an excuse to explain a decline in sales.
The copyright control agencies lobbied lawmakers to:
1) Outlaw Home Taping.
2) Blamed the loss of sales in 1981 on home taping when in fact the recession dried up the money for consumers to make discretionary purchases.
3) Lobby Lawmakers to pass laws which were passed requiring manufactures of high fidelity cassette recorders and cassettes to pay a fee to the copyright control agencies, just in case the cassette was used to record copyrighted music. They were successful and consumers wound up paying this hidden fee even if they did not use the cassette to record copyrighted music.
4) Outlaw the Digital Compact Cassette.
5) The lawmakers as a compromise to the copyright control agencies passed laws that required that all consumer CD recorders incorporate the Serial Copyright Management System and only copy music on CD ROMS that were encoded to indicate to the consumer CD Recorder that it was a CD ROM on which a fee was paid to the copyright holders.
6) Now the Red Herring is the sharing of copyrighted music.
Both lawmakers and copyright holders have failed to take into account that there are more opportunities for consumers to spend their discretionary money on things other then prerecorded music.
Disgusting...
To use a terrible crime justify your existence when your existence doesn’t even relate to that crime (unless those record studios have been working to combat child porn all these years and no one knew about…) is the lowest of the low. Its not like we’re talking about someone trying to help victims, fund volunteers to track down child porn collectors, or in some way stop/reeducate/reform those who commit those crimes. We are talking about people who will do and say anything to maintain their existence.
The ISP should absolutely be responsible for filtering and blocking illegal content on their network. For example, if they KNOW a site overseas is breaking the law. KNOW it. But the local government can’t shut that international site down, why should the ISP not be mandated to block it?
Such levels of ISP responsibility should apply for any Internet crime. And yes, piracy is a crime.
But
But that would require ISP cooperation and God forbid they lift a finger to do anything except collect subscriptions.ghd straighteners